[bapimporb]

There will never be universal agreement on a definition of 'literature'...

Indeed.

But if 'literature' is defined by a certain quality of prose, then it's clearly nonsense to say that any genre of fiction cannot possibly reach those levels.

[OvDojQXN]

Oh Bataille: you'll have to write a review for that one too

As it happens, The Story Of The Eye is high up on my reading list too.

[Signabeademia]

There's a rather detailed write-up on Story of the Eye here:

Story of The Eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although it sounds provocative enough, it doesn't exactly sound like a "turn on." I think I'll stick to having boiled eggs in egg salad sandwiches, thank you very much. And I really don't find the thoughts of taurine testicles erotic, either .

I think Eric may have made a good point about sex in literature--
less can be more. In fact, subtlety can be very arousing. For example, there's a very sensual scene in The Age of Innocence between Newland Archer and Countess Olenska; yet, all he does is remove one of her gloves.

Since I don't wish to provoke an argument, I am not going to comment on the pornography vs. literature issue. Whether or not The Story of the Eye is literature--or indeed, merely one writer's excuse to unleash all his twisted inhibitions--may be another story entirely. To me, The Story of the Eye sounds not merely pornographic, but absolutely demented.

Just to hold off any personal attacks, please know that I am not going to go to great lengths to defend my opinion. I make no apologies for my views. These are only my own personal thoughts on this matter .

Best,
Titania

"Don't compromise yourself--you're all you've got."
~Janis Joplin

[meteeratymn]

Indeed.

But if 'literature' is defined by a certain quality of prose, then it's clearly nonsense to say that any genre of fiction cannot possibly reach those levels.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about literary quality, which is only explicable with great difficulty, and even then highly debatable: I was trying to democratise an argument that Eric seemed to be taking into incomprehensible aristocratic realms. (I imagine that this is the kind of thing you meant in your post, Sybarite?)

[ehib8yPc]

I agree with Titania that subtlety and sensuality can be arousing. Also the interweaving of love with sex, where it ceases to be the mechanics of copulation.

I don't believe, Lionel, that you democratise the argument by reducing literature to whether the grammar's OK. I'm not being airy-fairy, fancy-prancy about literature, I'm just saying that there are specific criteria that make literature. These are beyond the banalities of spelling and getting your grammar right. There are many criteria, and they are not weird, obscure or highfalutin. How Masoch does it, in square brackets:

1) Narration. Whether the book is told by the person experiencing the action, or by an observer. This makes a big difference of the point of view the reader has on what happens. [Masoch chooses a first-person narrator, an "I".]

2) Similar to 1). Inside or outside the character. The author can describe a character as he sees him, or add thoughts, as if able to climb into the character's head and read his thought. [Masoch's narrator knows everything, as it's the protagonist himself telling the story, adding the dialogue as it was.]

3) Setting. Is the book set in a real-life, recognisable setting, or in a dream world, a fantasy world, etc? [In a claustrophic indoor setting, sometimes, also outdoors, with negresses harnassing the protagonist to a plough.]

4) Does the author use ordinary language, or create a special atmosphere by using "fancy words"? [Allowing for the odd weird word, such as "kazabaika", he appears, if the translation is to be believed, to use ordinary language for his epoch.]

5) Is the dialogue living or stilted? Does it reveal all, or hint at things? [Masoch reveals all, in desperately stilted dialogue, if the translation is accurate.]

6) Length of time. Does the action take place within a short or long space of time? Are there flashbacks, or is it all in the past? Does it happen within 2 hours, 24 hours, or over many years? [?]

7) Is the imagery, the description, apt or overdone? [I would claim that a lot is overdone.]

8) Are the gender roles normal for the time of writing? How do they compare with the gender roles of today? [Women worship, of the most yucky kind. Not really in line with the equality of the sexes. I think that Masoch mixes emotionality up with emotion. There are lots of tears and sighs. As well as lots of lovely whipping.]

And so on.

You may note that both the Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch ended their lives as madmen. Doesn't really surprise me. One amusing irrelevancy, gleaned from the Wiki, is that Sacher-Masoch was the great-great uncle of the British singer Marianne Faithfull. Bet she didn't dress up in the 1960s in non-poco furs and whip her lover.

One thing that intrigues me is what Masoch's original mother-tongue was. He was born in Lw?w (Lviv / Lemberg / Lvov) at a time when the main languages were Yiddish and Polish. He didn't learn German till the age of twelve. Like Kafka, Sacher-Masoch lived in a multilingual environment. That I find more interesting than his whips & black boots epic. And one curious co?ncidence: Masoch came only a few miles away from the town where Bruno Schulz was born and lived, Drohobycz. While Schulz wrote wonderful magical realist stories about his home town, he also had a penchant for masochism, and did some drawings of women dominating men (mostly his own alter ego), works of art which survived the Holocaust. But the masochism does not appear in his stories.

[Vigeommighica]

I'm just saying that there are specific criteria that make literature. These are beyond the banalities of spelling and getting your grammar right. There are many criteria, and they are not weird, obscure or highfalutin. How Masoch does it, in square brackets:

1) Narration. Whether the book is told by the person experiencing the action, or by an observer. This makes a big difference of the point of view the reader has on what happens. [Masoch chooses a first-person narrator, an "I".]

2) Similar to 1). Inside or outside the character. The author can describe a character as he sees him, or add thoughts, as if able to climb into the character's head and read his thought. [Masoch's narrator knows everything, as it's the protagonist himself telling the story, adding the dialogue as it was.]

3) Setting. Is the book set in a real-life, recognisable setting, or in a dream world, a fantasy world, etc? [In a claustrophic indoor setting, sometimes, also outdoors, with negresses harnassing the protagonist to a plough.]

4) Does the author use ordinary language, or create a special atmosphere by using "fancy words"? [Allowing for the odd weird word, such as "kazabaika", he appears, if the translation is to be believed, to use ordinary language for his epoch.]

5) Is the dialogue living or stilted? Does it reveal all, or hint at things? [Masoch reveals all, in desperately stilted dialogue, if the translation is accurate.]

6) Length of time. Does the action take place within a short or long space of time? Are there flashbacks, or is it all in the past? Does it happen within 2 hours, 24 hours, or over many years? [?]

7) Is the imagery, the description, apt or overdone? [I would claim that a lot is overdone.]

8) Are the gender roles normal for the time of writing? How do they compare with the gender roles of today? [Women worship, of the most yucky kind. Not really in line with the equality of the sexes. I think that Masoch mixes emotionality up with emotion. There are lots of tears and sighs. As well as lots of lovely whipping.]

And so on.

You may note that both the Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch ended their lives as madmen. Doesn't really surprise me. One amusing irrelevancy, gleaned from the Wiki, is that Sacher-Masoch was the great-great uncle of the British singer Marianne Faithfull. Bet she didn't dress up in the 1960s in non-poco furs and whip her lover.

apart from the sad, sad fact that you appear to view sadomasochism as a bad aberration, these criteria for what makes literature are strange. As you are talking about a yes/no decision (literature/not literature, or even goodliterature/badliterature), points 1-6 are completely irrelevant. is a first person narrator less literary than an observer? a recognizable setting less/more than a fantasy setting? Point 8 is mostly irrelevant. Point 7 is the only one which might surface in the context you put it in.

[Antelpebabe]

I would hardly consider this novel pornography--especially in the modern sense--or kinky sex as Eric is referring to it, if he means physical contact. While it has been some time since I've read it, I do not recall any sex in the erection, ejaculation, etc. sense, but only non-sexual gratification. The closest would have to be the "heaving bosoms"--ohhhh yeah, breathe for me baby; that's hot! Or perhaps its pornography is wasted on my generation?

True, Sacher-Masoch explores his views of women, their position in society, their connections and powers over men, invoking various mythologies and, obviously, the pivotal painting to create the aria of an enduring archetype. He also had a talent for description, and certainly aided me with my vocabulary deficit in regards to various furs and trimmings thereof--poor weasels

But I think calling it a significant literary work is an overstatement. While the story does explore what was then--or perhaps still largely is--a tabooed, smothered paraphilia, it becomes far too focused on the entertainment value rather than exploration of its psychology and implications. For what it's worth, I thought it started out fantastically and on the right track, hooking my interest completely, but it lost its way.

The way I see the novel, especially the second half, and even more so after reading his selected letters--with an extremely young admirer at that--, is Sacher-Masoch indulging in his own roller coaster ride of a sadomasochistic fantasy, or maybe reminiscence; allegedly the trip and events of the chateau were factual, which makes the work even more frustrating to me since the fictitious magical realism of the beginning and its dialog were so attractive, yet were caboose'd by the tiresome, devoid, redundant latter half.

Masoch, do me a favor and just make it all up next time. I'll whip you in reward.